Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Awards bait about a stuttering king? Give it a chance, it's pretty great.

Every year a film is released that screams, “Oscar!” and this year that film is The King’s Speech. Unfortunately, some people are turned off by films that seem destined for awards because the very synopsis of such films comes off as pretentious. It’s understandable why some would be put off by the story of a stuttering Duke of York in pre-WWII Britain. That’s right; The King’s Speech is all about a king with a speech impediment. It’s easy to see why some would be dismissive when they hear “awards” in relation to that plot synopsis. But people should not dismiss this film because it truly is deserving of awards consideration. It’s compelling and, more importantly, it’s entertaining.

The King’s Speech takes place in the two decades leading up to World War II. The Duke of York (let’s just stick with Albert for his name from here on out) isn’t in line to be king, but he still has to be able to speak to the public. His father, King George V (a great Michael Gambon), pressures him and doesn’t seem to understand that the problem can’t be fixed by sternly commanding him. This has left Albert short tempered and touchy. His wife and main source of inspiration, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), devotes her time to finding the best speech therapist and this is where the film really begins.

This film is actually about the friendship between the Albert and his speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Lionel has a unique approach to therapy and he requires Albert to follow his rules and open up about his personal life. Albert, who is intensely protective of his personal life, reacts with outrage early on, but can’t ignore the results Lionel gets. Their sessions are combative for the most part, but a bond is created. Their friendship is realistic in that Albert can have outbursts, but Lionel accepts them and continues on in his own stubborn way. The two men are both stubborn, it’s just that Lionel is much more understanding.

Albert and Lionel’s friendship is also the source of entertainment for the film. Their sessions are amusing enough (some of the speech exercises are a bit goofy), but the way the two characters play off each other is the real entertainment. It helps that Firth and Rush are great actors. Rush is a natural when it comes to creating sympathy, so Lionel is an instantly likable character. It would be easy to dislike Albert, but Firth plays him with such sincerity that you understand his personality and want things to work out for him. The ability to mimic a stutter is only one aspect of Firth’s impressive performance. Firth’s facial expressions throughout tell more about the character of Albert than any stuttered lines of dialogue ever could.

Helena Bonham Carter is great as Elizabeth, as well. Elizabeth is very devoted to her husband and Carter embodies that quite well. On the opposite side of devotion to Albert’s cure, Guy Pearce does a fine job in a short role as Edward. Edward, Albert’s older brother and heir to the throne, likes Albert the way he is because he can control him by poking fun at his impediment. Rounding out the cast is Timothy Spall as Winston Churchill. It’s a short role and Churchill is mainly a bystander in this film, but it’s still a fun performance.

The King’s Speech serves as a bit of a history lesson, as you may have noticed from all the real characters involved. (Warning: SPOILERS FOR HISTORY.) Many may be unaware (as this reviewer was) of Edward’s abdication of the crown due to his relationship with a divorced American woman, Wallis Simpson. The idea that Albert wasn’t really meant to be king adds much more gravity to his problem. Fixing his speech is not just about being able to communicate. The struggle turns into his ability to be the voice of the people of England. The fact that this is all set during the buildup to World War II make the stakes that much higher.

This film isn’t as completely serious as it sounds and it is definitely more visually appealing that some might expect. The training sequences are fun, but they are also shot in an interesting montage. Director Tom Hooper and cinematographer Danny Cohen zoom in during one exercise and zoom out to reveal a different exercise. It’s all very seamless. The framing of the scenes in this film is interesting as well. You get to see a lot of the sets and they are all unique and/or historical. In short, the film looks great.

The King’s Speech may appear overly serious if you only read about it or just watch a preview. Ignore the serious hype the film is getting and you’ll realize that this is a touching, funny, and interesting drama about friendship, devotion, and patriotism. Does it deserve awards buzz? Yes, but, more importantly, it deserves a large audience.

Random Thoughts

This isn't really a comment on the movie, but more of a comment about the historical situation. It's interesting that this problem, a leader with a speech impediment, would be quite impossible in America. Since England is a monarchy, Albert becomes the voice of the people through birth alone. And there is no way a person without the ability to speak properly could be elected in any kind of democratic office in the modern world. I just find it interesting how time changes what type of person can be a leader.

There is a bit of a rating controversy concerning this film. The dreaded f-word will get you an R-rating if it is used twice. This film is fairly squeaky clean until a scene in which Albert lets out many expletives as part of an exercise. It's a great, funny scene...and it is the sole reason for the R-rating. It would be nice if the MPAA could rate movies based on the context of the use of "obscene" language. The point is that The King's Speech is not really an R-rated movie.

The original TRON is an unlikely movie to receive a sequel. It was considered visually interesting, but there wasn’t much to it (I am inclined to agree, but will admit that if I had been in my teens when that film came out 1982, I may have loved it). On top of that, it didn’t become wildly popular. But TRON did gain enough of a cult following for Disney to put up some money for a sequel. Though strangely enough, Disney has pulled copies of the original TRON from stores leading up to the release of TRON: Legacy, perhaps hoping that this new film is the first experience many viewers have with the world of TRON.

Keeping new viewers out of the loop may be a smart movie for Disney, especially since this new TRON starts off with Flynn (Jeff Bridges) recapping the first film by way of a bedtime story to his son, Sam. New viewers simply do not need to see the original. All new viewers need to know is that TRON is about a human entering a physical world of computers/videogames known as the Grid, where programs are personified…and hostile.

After the introduction/bedtime story, TRON: Legacy really begins with Sam (Garrett Hedlund) dealing with the disappearance of his father, who went missing right after telling young Sam that bedtime story. You can probably guess that Flynn is actually stuck in the Grid, and Sam ends up going after him.

The Grid is the true star of TRON. The world created (or I suppose “updated” would be more accurate) by the filmmakers is fully realized. It’s dark, yet filled with neon light. It’s a dead world, yet populated with millions of programs/people. It’s loud and it has its own soundtrack (a perfect fit of a score by Daft Punk). The Grid is absolutely visually and audibly arresting (especially if you get the chance to see it in IMAX 3D). Aesthetically speaking, TRON is one of the best films of the year; you feel like you’re in the Grid with Sam and Flynn.

It’s important that you feel like you’re in the Grid because action is always better if you feel like you’re involved. The famous (or famously parodied, I should say) light cycle races from the original are back and better than ever. The other gladiatorial game involving the light discs (think fatal Frisbees) is amazing as well. TRON is primarily an action movie and it is an entertaining action movie at that.

Visuals aside, TRON is still an interesting film, for the most part. Most people can identify emotionally with the father-son relationship, but the actual struggle of the film has its moments as well. Flynn is not just stuck in the Grid, he is there to try and stop Clu, a program he created in his own image that has become overlord of the Grid. This is the where the story starts to struggle a bit. There are ideas tossed around about how certain types of programs can change the outside world, but Clu had them wiped out in a computerized genocide. It’s all better if you try not to think too hard about it.

It’s easy to forgive TRON for its story issues because of the sensory qualities and because of the cast. Hedlund does a fine job as Sam. He’s not given too much to do, acting-wise, but he is charismatic and likable. Bridges, on the other hand, is given a bounty. As Flynn, he gets to play this Buddha-like character, proclaiming non-violence and inaction as the correct path. As Clu, he gets to sneer, yell, and give dictatorial speeches. He must have had a lot of fun in this movie because he is very fun to watch.

Rounding out the cast are Olivia Wilde and Michael Sheen. Wilde plays Quorra, a wide-eyed program eager to learn about the real world. Wilde is great at portraying wonderment and she looks amazing as well. Sheen plays Castor, an eccentric club owner. (Why is there a night club for computer programs? Who cares?) Castor is basically a coked up David Bowie, so Sheen obviously gets to ham it up in this role and it is very entertaining.

The acting, action, and score of TRON are all great, but most people seem to be interested in Jeff Bridges as Clu. It’s not because he’s playing a villain, though. It’s because he’s playing a villain that looks like Jeff Bridges twenty years ago. It’s being argued about on the message boards, but I thought it looked decent and even realistic at times. In a few scenes, Clu looked like he was made of plastic, but that problem can be argued away with the fact that he is a computer program, not a person (but that’s venturing into hardcore dorky argument territory there). Anyway, the de-aging will work for some, but it will take others out of the movie. It’s hard to imagine how it could “ruin” the movie for anyone, though.

Arguments over de-aging aside, TRON is great to look at and listen to. The story might be convoluted or nonsensical at times, but you should be able to get past that and enjoy yourself. This is a film about physically entering a videogame, to put it simply, and it should be treated as such. Put on some 3D glasses and enjoy the show.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Early in the movie a potential rival to Sam appears in the way of Ed Dillinger's son, Edward, played by Cillian Murphy. At first, I thought, "Cool, Cilliam Murphy's in this movie. I didn't even know about that." But he's only in that one early scene. Don't get me wrong, cool cameo, but I was really hoping for a bigger part for him. Maybe it's all just a setup for a sequel...

Not since Nick Cave's appearance in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford has the musical score provider(s) cameo been more justified. It was pretty damn cool to see Daft Punk in the Michael Sheen club scenes.

That dorky argument stuff above about the de-aging? Well, that only works in the Grid. The film does start with a de-aged Bridges in the real world and he does look a little strange. I'll accept the Grid argument for scenes in the Grid, but I have to admit that the de-aging looked a bit weak in that first scene and no computer program argument can explain it away.

Finally, a few questions that I don't feel like thinking long enough about to come up with an answer. How was Quorra able to go with Sam into the real world? Her information disc was left in the Grid. I thought you had to have your disc with you to travel to the real world. If that's the case, then Flynn should have made the journey with them since Sam had his disc. Did I miss a major rule about traveling between worlds?

Oh, and is there any doubt that the explosion at the end didn't actually kill Flynn (or possibly even Clu for that matter)? I suspect Flynn survived somehow (he is the God of the Grid, after all) and if there's a sequel, Dillinger (Murphy) will be the one trying to mess things up.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

True Grit - Written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, starring Jeff Bridges, Hailee Steinfeld, Matt Damon, Barry Pepper, and Josh Brolin - Rated PG-13The Coens made a neo-western with No Country, now they've made a plain old western. I'm glad they did.

Remakes seem to be almost universally hated in the film community these days but there are some (including me) that don’t get up in arms about every single remake. Why is it so terrible that filmmakers want to give their own spin on a story? Worst-case scenario: it sucks; you ignore it, and then watch the original again. Case in point, True Grit, the latest remake from the Coen Brothers, will probably not replace the John Wayne original in most viewers’ hearts, but it doesn’t hurt to see a new take on the Charles Portis novel, especially when it’s made by the Coens.

The Coens, no strangers to the remake game after 2004’s The Ladykillers, have said that their new version of the story is a new adaptation of the novel rather than of the screenplay and that holds true. This version is definitely darker and more violent than the original. It’s not just about darkness and violence, though. The novel had a bittersweet quality to it and more of a focus on the young heroine, Mattie Ross; whereas the 1969 film focused a bit more on the grizzled antihero, Rooster Cogburn. Enough about the original, though, True Grit is its own film.

True Grit takes place in Arkansas in the latter half of the 1800s. Fourteen-year-old Mattie Ross (relative newcomer Hailee Steinfeld) takes it upon herself to track down her father’s murderer, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), who has fled into Indian territory, which is a haven for outlaws. She enlists the help of a hardened, drunken U.S. Marshal, Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) and receives unwanted aid in the form of a Texas Ranger named LaBoeuf (Matt Damon).

At its heart, True Grit is a film about determination and retribution, but it is also a film about the friendship, or lack thereof, between Cogburn, Mattie, and LaBoeuf. There lies the true action of this film. LaBoeuf and Cogburn trade barbs while Mattie decides which man is more admirable. At certain points, it seemed like the two men were more worried about maintaining their dignity in front of Mattie than actually finding Chaney.

Mattie is the focus of the two male leads of the film and she is the rightful focus of the film itself. The rough Old West lawman has been done to death, but the determined fourteen-year-old girl of the Old West is untouched material. Thankfully, the film doesn’t get stuck on the ridiculousness of a young girl hunting a fugitive (although the acknowledgment of the fact does lead to a good laugh or two). Instead, the focus is on her character. Mattie is a stubborn girl who argues for what she thinks is right no matter what. And Steinfeld completely inhabits the character. From her first moments, her steely gaze convinces you that not only can she handle the character of Mattie Ross, but she can even outshine the likes of Matt Damon and Jeff Bridges. She handles the Coens’ rapid-fire witty dialogue with complete sincerity and ease. Steinfeld is easily the best part of the film and deserves some recognition this awards season. (For the record, she did win the IFJA’s Supporting Actress award.)

Steinfeld is more impressive than her co-stars, but that doesn’t mean their performances are weak. Bridges does a fine job and gives a very amusing turn as Cogburn. He basically plays it as if Bad Blake from last year’s Crazy Heart was a lawman and there is nothing wrong with that. No one is going to forget about John Wayne or anything, but Bridges does a great job. Damon is just as entertaining as the egotistic LaBoeuf. Josh Brolin and Barry Pepper (who is nearly unrecognizable here) also turn in good performances, Pepper more so than Brolin.

Humor might seem like an odd word in relation to what’s supposed to be a dark western, but this is a Coen Brothers western. The dialogue of any Coen Brothers film is a star in itself and that applies to True Grit. The bickering between LaBoeuf and Cogburn, the bartering of Mattie, the rambling of a strange bear hunter/dentist, etc. is all great and makes what could be boring scenes become funny scenes.

This isn’t a complete comedy, though; True Grit does contain some scenes of sudden and brutal violence (don’t worry about that PG-13 rating, this movie has blood). It is all very effective, but more importantly, it looks beautiful at times. Director of photography Roger Deakins has filmed yet another beautiful film. Teamed up with the Coens, Deakins creates slow, meandering tracking shots, interesting wide shots of great locations, and low-lit scenes of intensity. Add an effective, old school score by Carter Burwell (with great touches that are reminiscent of Miller’s Crossing) and True Grit is a very aesthetically pleasing film.

True Grit may not be the action packed western some may hope for, but if you let the film sink in you realize how effective it really is. Most effective, though, is the Coens’ slavish devotion to the source material. Much like No Country for Old Men, the Coens never stray very far from the novel the film is based on. The ending of the film truly benefits from this. Others may find the film’s finale a bit abrupt or anti-climactic, but it is in keeping with the realistic tone of the rest of the film.

The film is not without its faults, though. The devotion to the source material may go too far at times; most notably with the mentally challenged outlaw who makes animal sounds. A reader will recognize that character, but a viewer may be left confused. Aside from that, there is really nothing wrong with True Grit. If anything, though, a Coen fan may be a bit disappointed by how straightforward the film is. The discussions created by last year’s A Serious Man (my #1 film of 2009) are nonexistent here. You can’t fault a film for abandoning the deep end, but it may keep this film off of top ten lists and the like.

Top ten lists and awards probably don’t mean much to the Coens. They are more likely worried about making an enjoyable and beautiful film and they certainly have accomplished that with True Grit. If you want John Wayne and an ending that comes complete with a bow on top, then by all means, watch the classic 1969 film. If you’re looking for something fun, well-acted, dark, and beautiful, then watch this new version. Remember, it’s not a really a remake, it’s just the Coens’ own vision of a novel and it’s a vision worth seeing.

Random Thoughts

Barry Pepper plays Ned Pepper. I just thought that was amusing. Not since Kevin Dunn acted in a film with a character named Kevin Dunn (Snake Eyes) has such a coincidence occurred. Aside from that, I can’t stress enough how vastly different Pepper looks in this film. His performance will make you wish he had been the main antagonist throughout, although Chaney isn’t truly an antagonist, either, to be honest.

I dug Cogburn’s intro via an outhouse, just a really great way to introduce the character.

I can’t find any confirmation of this, but I am 99% sure that the voice of Lawyer Daggett is none other than J. K. Simmons. It was a nice touch adding his voice, assuming I am correct, that is.

The nearly word for word adaptation of the court scene from the novel was great. It was as if the Coens handed the actors a copy of the novel rather than a script, which is a possibility.

Much like Bardem before him, Bale gives the standout supporting performance of the year.

The Fighter has all the elements of a boxing drama that might lead people to worry about it being a clichéd, dull retread of every boxing movie from yesteryear, but the film dashes aside the notion that a boxing drama must be 100% drama and ends up being a surprisingly light, effective film featuring an amazing performance from Christian Bale.

The film is the true story of “Irish” Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) and his older brother/trainer, Dicky Eklund (Bale). The focus of the film is on Micky and his battle to get out of his brother’s shadow and become the champion his brother never was. That sounds simple and basic enough, but the family drama is what makes this film truly effective. Dicky still believes he has a chance of a comeback, and it seems like the rest of his family does as well. No one, aside from his father George, seems to care about Micky’s career.

It’s easy to see why Dicky gets all of the attention. Micky is the quiet type, just sitting back and letting everyone else take care of him. Dicky, on the other hand, is outspoken and charismatic, though he suffers from crack addiction. The film becomes interesting here for two reasons: the treatment of the addiction and Bale.

Drug addiction is usually shown in a very negative light, with terrible consequences. In The Fighter, though, it’s handled a bit differently…with a bit of comedy. Don’t take that the wrong way, the effects of drug use are still shown, but some of Dicky’s antics are humorous. Perhaps the filmmakers didn’t intend for some moments to be funny, but the end result is humorous at times. This is not a bad thing. Drug abusers in films tend towards the melodramatic; it was refreshing to lighten it up just a bit.

The main reason the character of Dicky works, though, is Christian Bale. Bale has given many impressive performances, but he truly inhabits this character. It is obvious from the first frame that Bale is doing something amazing in this film. Bale made every scene he was in better not just with his accent but with pure physicality. There is an element of weight loss, but it’s the way Bale moves in each scene. Whenever he’s talking to a character in a two shot, I kept wondering what Bale was up to when the camera wasn’t on him. While his character doesn’t get much action in the ring, he still manages to turn every conversation into a simulated boxing match. If he doesn’t get the Oscar for Supporting Actor it will be a travesty.

The other performances pale in comparison to Bale’s, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t good. Wahlberg is decent and is notable for the fact that he is back in his range playing an athlete. Amy Adams handles herself well as Micky’s new girlfriend, though I saw her as just a more serious version of her character in Talladega Nights. Jack McGee has quite a few fun moments as George. And Melissa Leo gives yet another strong performance as Micky and Dicky’s manager/mother.

Leo represents the real conflict of the film. She favors Dicky over Micky no matter how many times Dicky screws up. The sincere shock on Leo’s face when anyone stands up to her ridiculous favoritism is enraging and effective. That, along with other situations, makes The Fighter an easy film to get caught up in and enjoy.

One aspect that is hard to truly enjoy is the boxing. Some of it is handled decently and the fights are easy to follow, which is the best you can expect from a film about boxing. Isn’t it time that boxing films ditch the Rocky sound effects, though? Every punch, even blocked punches, carried an overly loud sound effect that became distracting at times. Visually, though, the fighting is exciting and occasionally interesting.

The film is engaging almost throughout and because of that it is easy to get past some of the more melodramatic scenes. The light tone stays intact for the most part, though, only tilting off the rails momentarily.

The nearly comical tone of the film and the realistic family struggles make this an enjoyable film. Christian Bale elevates it to one of the year’s best. It can’t be stressed enough that Bale has given arguably the best performance of his career; no small compliment when you consider Bale’s past roles in American Psycho and Rescue Dawn. Enjoy The Fighter, but be awed by Christian Bale.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I liked the framing device of the documentary. Good way to bookend the film, especially since it starts with Bale on his own, bringing Micky in and ends with Dicky getting up to leave the camera alone with Micky.

The melodramatic scene I referenced above is the part when Dicky’s toddler son wants to watch the documentary. I don’t know, it just seemed over the top at that point.

I dug the soundtrack; it helped keep the tone consistent and it placed the film in its time period well (except for that Chili Peppers' song from Stadium Arcadium, though it sounded right for the scene).

It was interesting that Mickey O’Keefe, Ward’s real life trainer, played himself in the film. That role was not a cameo. I was impressed with him enough to look him up and find his other roles. I was quite surprised to find out who he was.

The funny aspects of drug abuse, just to be specific, were Dicky’s escape route from the crack house (out the window into the trash) and when he knocked out George. Describing it only makes it sound more serious, but those who see it will understand that it could be viewed as funny.

Much like Bruce Banner's dad, this film just couldn't figure out what it was supposed to be.

The Tourist, the latest from Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp, is a film that never figures out what it wants to be and ultimately becomes a boring, forgettable film. The film is about Frank Tupelo (Depp), an American tourist who gets stuck in the middle of an elaborate international sting operation. Elise (Jolie) is the ex-lover of the criminal the sting is after. She is watched constantly, so the criminal tells her to find someone who matches his height and build so the cops (and the mobster he stole money from) think that the stranger is him. This all seems fine and just complicated enough to be slightly interesting, but it’s only interesting on the surface.

The Tourist never really takes off and this is due to a lack of chemistry and interesting dialogue. There is supposed to be this immediate fire between Depp and Jolie, but it simply is not there. Because of this, the film contains many quiet moments of these two actors staring awkwardly into space or at each other. When they do talk, it is almost never interesting. Frank asks bland questions that Elise never answers. A lot of the film consists of Depp and Jolie riding boats in silence in Venice. Speaking of Venice, the locations end up being one of the only interesting parts of the film.

The lack of chemistry would be forgivable if the film made up for it with style, but the filmmaking is quite boring as well. Co-writer and director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck shows none of the promise from 2006’s The Lives of Others. Aside from one moment near the end of the film, the look of The Tourist is as forgettable as its content. Perhaps von Donnersmarck was held up because this was a big budget studio remake of a 2005 French film. Here’s hoping he does something more original for his follow-up.

The stars themselves are some of the only redeeming qualities to this film. Depp and Jolie may not have much in the way of chemistry, but they are still decent actors. Jolie is outshined by Depp here, though. Jolie is forced to play this heartbroken, depressed woman and that is not cinematically interesting in a movie that is meant to be more entertaining than heartfelt.

Jolie doesn’t fit into the action movie aspect of the film, but The Tourist isn’t an action movie. Is it a comedy, though? Depp’s character seems to point in that direction. Depp gets the only funny things to do in the film: be slightly bumbling, speak Spanish to Italians, get chased in his pajamas, etc. Some of this stuff works and is amusing at times, but then the movie changes pace again.

Just when it seemed like the film was some kind of light action comedy there would be a scene that made it seem like the film was a serious drama about Depp and Jolie’s relationship. Then the mobster stuff was thrown in and the film became a bit dark and serious as people started getting murdered. But there was never a true sense of danger. Then there’s the whole mystery of who Elise’s criminal boyfriend really is. That mystery may be what the film tries to focus on, but it never gained my true interest.

The mystery aspect could potentially make The Tourist one of those films that requires you to watch it again to look for clues, but it is all so boring and the stakes of the film are so unbelievable that it never works. Who cares if Frank or Elise ever find true love? Who cares if the cliché mobster gets his revenge? Who cares if the bitter Scotland Yard inspector (a wasted Paul Bettany, who does his best to make the role worthwhile) finds the criminal? Who cares? If a film can’t hook you into slightly caring about its characters, then it can’t keep your interest.

Normally a film devoid of emotion like this could at least keep you happy with a bit of visual flair, but The Tourist fails in that regard as well. It’s possible that the star quality of Depp and Jolie will be enough for some, but if you’re looking for true substance and interesting filmmaking, you won’t find it with The Tourist.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I just have to say that I was honestly expecting this to be a good film considering all who were involved. A true missed opportunity.

The revelation that Depp is actually the criminal the whole time should have been a payoff that made me want to watch the film at least once more to look for clues, but I really did not care. I was just happy the film was over. Maybe the whole twist thing will work for some, though.

I enjoyed Timothy Dalton in his few scenes.

That one visual flair, when all the mobsters get hit with sniper fire in slow motion, was pretty great. If only there were more moments like that.

This marks my first awards season as a member of the Indiana Film Journalists Association (IFJA) and I am very proud to present our awards for 2010. A little commentary on the awards first, though. I want to point out that this is not my personal list or anything (I'll be posting a Top Ten list later on this year), but I feel this is a very strong list and I can't really disagree with how the voting came out. A few points that would have come out differently if I had my druthers, though: Black Swan would be the best film of the year with Aronofsky taking directing honors as well (though I am very happy to see Nolan's name there). I loved James Franco in 127 Hours, but in the end I felt Jesse Eisenberg gave the best performance of the year. More importantly, I emphatically support our selection of Hailee Steinfeld for Best Supporting Actress (True Grit) and Christian Bale for Best Supporting Actor (The Fighter). And, as you probably know if you read my Black Swan review, I am in complete support of Natalie Portman winning Best Actress. Enough of my rambling, though; here are the IFJA's 2010 Awards, enjoy!

Indiana Film Journalists Association announces 2010 Awards

The Indiana Film Journalists Association, an organization of journalists dedicated to promoting quality film criticism in the Hoosier State, is pleased to announce its annual film awards.

"The Social Network" took top honors, winning Best Film as well as Aaron Sorkin for Best Screenplay. "Inception" received two awards, Best Director Christopher Nolan and the Original Vision Award.

Winners were declared in 12 categories, with a runner-up in 11 categories. In addition, a total of 10 movies (including the winner and runner-up) were recognized as Finalists for the top prize, Best Film of the Year.

Natalie Portman was named Best Actress for "Black Swan." James Franco won Best Actor for "127 Hours." Hailee Steinfeld took Best Supporting Actress for "True Grit" and Christian Bale was named Best Supporting Actor for "The Fighter."

"How to Train Your Dragon" was named Best Animated Film, "Exit Through the Gift Shop" Best Documentary and "Lebanon" Best Foreign Language Film.

Andie Redwine was honored with The Hoosier Award for her work on "Paradise Recovered," a film about a woman from a cloistered religious sect forced to view her community from a new perspective, which was partially shot in southern Indiana.

To be eligible, a film must have played theatrically in Indiana during the 2010 calendar year, screened to state critics in advance of a 2011 general release date, or play in a Hoosier State film festival such as Indianapolis International Film Festival or Heartland Film Festival.

Below is a complete list of honored films. A word of explanation about the last two categories:

The Original Vision Award is meant to recognize a film that is especially innovative or original.

The Hoosier Award recognizes a significant cinematic contribution by a person or persons with Indiana roots. As a special award, no runner-up is declared.

About IFJA: The Indiana Film Journalists Association was established in February 2009 with six founding members, and has since expanded its roster to 11. Members must reside in the Hoosier State and produce consistent, quality film criticism or commentary in any medium.

Director Darren Aronofsky is on a tortured performer kick…and he can stay on that kick as far as I’m concerned. First, he made 2008’s The Wrestler (my favorite film of that year), a film about a washed up wrestler striving to reclaim both his professional and personal life. Now, with Black Swan, Aronofsky looks at the beginning of a career rather than the end, but the professional and personal struggles of a performer are still the center of attention.

Black Swan takes place in the world of New York City ballet, which may be off-putting to some. I admit that I was not exactly thrilled to hear that Aronofsky’s next film was going to be about ballet. Of course, I was completely wrong to doubt the filmmaker. Ballet is just the backdrop for a truly disturbing psychological drama (and/or horror) film featuring an amazing performance by Natalie Portman.

Portman stars as Nina Sayers, a soft-spoken and sheltered young woman trying to reach the top of her ballet troupe. Perhaps “sheltered” is too weak a word. Scenes in Nina’s apartment, which she shares with her former ballerina mother (a very effective Barbara Hershey), feel like prison scenes. Nina’s mother seems to hear everything and is unwilling to allow Nina the smallest of privacies for more than a few moments.

It doesn’t help that Nina has a physically and mentally demanding job. She is trying to win the lead in a version of “Swan Lake,” which is being produced by Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel), who is known for being a bit too intimate with his dancers. Nina performs well and she is a perfectionist, but this role requires her to be the White Swan (perfect and pure) and the Black Swan (spontaneous and seductive). Therein lies the problem. Becoming the Black Swan means bending the rules and rules are what keep Nina sane, although one could argue whether or not sanity is worth it if such a sheltered life is required to retain it.

Nina’s sanity is also tested by the idea of becoming obsolete. Thomas’s former “little princess” Beth (Winona Ryder in a powerful and unstable performance) is taking a forced retirement at a relatively early age and Nina is filling the void. There is a bit of guilt there, but that is not the troubling aspect of the situation. Just as Nina is getting her moment to shine, Lily (Mila Kunis), a younger and more confident dancer, shows up.

Finally, add sexuality into the stress pile. As stated above, Nina is sheltered and treated like a child, so serious boyfriends have never really existed for her. Suddenly she is facing Thomas and being challenged to be sexy in her new role. Thomas believes that the Black Swan role must be seductive. Then there’s Lily, who represents this forbidden sexuality that has been festering in Nina for years.

Lily works as a foil to Nina in many ways and that is the crux of the film. Black Swan is all about duality. This is where the psychological horror element comes into play. The movie is told through Nina’s perspective, so we see what she sees, and it is disturbing at times. This film demands an attentive viewer. Characters’ faces change, physical transformations appear to take place, and art seems to move. The surroundings of the character are telling as well. Much like Stanley Kubrick, Aronofsky is a director that demands you pay attention to the sets.

Some of the aspects of the sets are obvious; there are mirrors everywhere, so you’re constantly looking at a reflection of Nina…or are you? You know, that basic identity paranoia stuff. But look around Nina’s apartment and you’ll see little touches…like the butterfly wallpaper. Most films don’t deserve that close viewer attention; Black Swan does.

Black Swan deserves an attentive ear, too. Go ahead and enjoy the classical music and the entrancing original score by the always impressive Clint Mansell, but pay attention to the little sounds. The similarity of a striking lighter’s sound to the sound of a pervert on the subway (sounds weird, I know, but the scene transition that takes place when those sounds occur is interesting). The flutter of wings that sounds eerily similar to two subway trains passing. This movie is full of nuances like that.

The comparison to Kubrick above is not done lightly. I consider Kubrick to be the best director of all time and I only throw out a comparison if I find it truly worthy. With Black Swan, I’m starting to think of Aronofsky as a filmmaker on the same level as Kubrick. He has developed a signature sound and visual style and he has that ability to make hypnotic scenes turn into nightmares in seconds. The scene in mind is the fundraising event. The scenes melt together like the ballroom scenes in The Shining or the Christmas party scene in Eyes Wide Shut. Then things get strange in the bathroom. That is just an example of how precisely similar the two filmmakers can be. The truth is they are quite different in overall style.

Kubrick would have filmed the ballet sequences as you would see them from the best seat in the house. (I am aware that Kubrick did film a ballet sequence in his early years for Killer's Kiss, but I feel that that was early enough in his career that he had not developed a signature style just yet.) Aronofsky sends the camera along with the dancer. No offense to the art of ballet, but I don’t want to see a beautiful, lengthy production of “Swan Lake.” I would rather follow a single dancer into the foray and let the camera be part of the story and the struggle. It is extremely effective and the ballet scenes end up being as intense and beautiful as anything I’ve seen this year.

The aesthetics of Black Swan are undoubtedly superb and the style definitely adds to the substance of the film, but a lot of credit goes to the (basically first-time) screenwriters Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz, and John McLaughlin. That lengthy summary above concerning the character of Nina? It’s because of their screenplay. There are so many elements in this story that work and that are intriguing that to summarize Nina as simply “troubled” would be a disservice to the character. (I write this wholeheartedly as a man who hates the wasted space of summary.) Nina is easily one of the best written characters on screen this year. Thankfully, Natalie Portman inhabits her in the performance of her career and the performance of the year.

The casting of Portman adds its own part in the story of a woman breaking out of her shell. Sure, Portman has had her edgier roles (Closer), but she is usually the sweet girl that no one worries about. The expectations an audience may have for her help the performance very much, but they don’t make it. She shows true dedication and ability in this film. In a movie about transformation, I truly believed in her character’s changes. That’s another connection to The Wrestler, Aronofsky gets a performance from Portman that rivals Mickey Rourke’s.

The final connection to The Wrestler? It’s one of my favorite films of the year. Black Swan works on every level for me. The direction, writing, production values, music, and acting are all top notch. It is a film I plan on revisiting over and over in the future. Much like a Kubrick film, I imagine I’ll see something new and different each time.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Yes, Portman and Kunis have a bit of a love scene in this movie. There is a point behind it and while it is quite sexy, it quickly gets creepy and weird.

I loved the first time one of the portrait's eyes moved in Nina's apartment. It happens so quickly it's easy to miss, but very effective if you happen to catch it.

Another connection to The Wrestler: both films end at the end of a performance with a crowd cheering. Gutsy, but appropriate. Also, fading out to the sound of applause is kind of a cool way to end a film.

Oh, and the last line of "It was perfect"? Gutsy as hell. If the movie sucked, then Aronofksy would catch a lot of crap, though I highly doubt he cares what I, or any other more accomplished critic, thinks about his work.